Saturday, July 29, 2006

Joe Says Iraq is Not Important to Voters

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Lieberman suggested that he wanted to move the debate away from the war. “We’re going to try hard to focus this back on the issues that I think really are ultimately more important to the future of families in Connecticut: jobs, health care, education,’’ he said.

In matters of war, Joe misjudges the opinion of Connecticut Democrats at his own peril.

A third of Democrats - 31 percent - identified war, both the three-year-old Iraq war and conflicts in general, as the top problem for the country while 14 percent listed the economy, highlighting an issue at the forefront for Democrats, with less than four months to the midterm elections.

"The last three times I voted for him, but I will never vote for him again," Cheryl Curtiss of West Hartford, Conn., said recently of Lieberman.... "The war is the big piece," said Curtiss, 52. "I don't think it can be minimized. All of our tax dollars are going there. It's killing Americans. It's killing Iraqis. We went there on lies."

And David Broder, in a WaPo column on the race out tomorrow, finds that Joe has a history of ignoring constituents who try to tell him Iraq is important to them:

Ignoring the issue won't work....

One [Lamont supporter], Karen Schuessler of Ridgefield, told me she had bought an expensive ticket to a Lieberman fundraiser last December so she could tell him directly how much she opposed the war. "He told me, 'Things are looking better over there. They're voting. They have a constitution.' I thought, 'What a moron!' The next month, I went to the first dump-Lieberman meeting."

Update 2: From the trail yesterday, another example. Ten-Million-Dollar Joe is more than happy to talk to senior citizens about his opponent's personal finances (while spending twice as much as him on this campaign). But if you're a constituent, don't mention the war!

"How are you going to get us out of this war, Senator?" I ask.

His eyes narrow. "We're working on that," he answers dismissively.

"What's your plan to get us out of Iraq, Senator?" I ask as he tries to move away, but the clutch of supporters and reporters has pressed in and there's nowhere to run.

"The war is costing us $250 million a day," I offer.

Joe noticeably relaxes as his goons have now identified the enemy. Two beefy goons force themselves between me and my Senator.

Joe mumbles "Yeah, it's tough."

posted by tparty at 9:46 AM

Comments:

To quote some dialogue from "Liar, Liar," in which Jim Carrey plays a lawyer under a spell that prevents him from lying:

When someone tried to ask him about the war, he totally blew them off and Joe's goons tried to block the millionaire Senator from the voter.

Then when he approaches senior citizens playing bingo, what does he bring up? How RICH Ned Lamont is!!!! THIS is the issue he thinks voters care about (or he wants voters to care about) - how rich Lamont is. It's ridiculous.

I'm curious - in the AP article it says that the DSCC has been the ones prodding Lieberman to hire more "get-out-the-vote" staff. Is it unusual for the DSCC to be involved in getting an incumbent re-elected over a primary challenger? For example, are they shoing the same amount of support for the Hawaiian Senator Akaka who is facing a primary challenge from a more conservative-type democrat?

I'm wondering when Lamont will go for the "nuclear option" and release an ad showing Lieberman in attendance at the dinner where Bush "searched" for the missing WMDs under various pieces of Oval Office furniture, as Lieberman is shown on camera yukking it up. Something with a voiceover saying, "the X number of soldiers who have died in Iraq and their families don't find the lies that caused their deaths very funny, Senator. And the rest of us don't find the X number of dollars in taxes it's cost every citizen of our state for this disastrous and unnecessary war very funny, either."

Maybe Lamont should keep that one in the can for the general election, since he's well on his way to winning the primary without it. But it should definitely make an appearance before all is said and done.

The comment by Jennifer is absolutely spot-on. This one tableau perfectly frames the progressive's opposition to Lieberman. In fact, this could also be used with devastating effect against many Republicans and their lickspittle enablers in the media. You know - those self-inflating, overrated lapdogs that Boelert describes so well in his book. I strongly urge Mr. Lamont to develop an ad precisely as Jennifer limns.

My only regret is that I cannot vote for Ned Lamont in either the primary or general election.

So...Ned Lamont is going to save Connecticut and the US Senate. Let's see, he's qualified to run because he has the Ivy League stamp of approval and the $$$ required to become a senator nowadays. And, he has previous legislative experi-- oops! Wait. No he doesn't! He's a millionaire businessman, which means he's automatically qualified to make our nation's laws. Let's all punch our ballots and cross our progressive fingers with the hope that he's a fast learner. Besides, who needs "experience" these days to make sagacious decisions and lead the masses, when you have thousands of disgruntled people ready to latch on to anyone with the bucks to run. God bless america!